Azathioprine Group Research Articles

Comparative study of the efficacy of azathioprine, dapsone, and NB-UVB phototherapy as steroid-sparing modalities in generalised lichen planus.

Background Generalised lichen planus (GLP) is a chronic disease with an overall prevalence of 1% requiring longer treatment. Limited studies are available on GLP and its treatment in the literature, unlike oral lichen planus. Objective To determine the best steroid-sparing treatment modality for GLP by comparing the efficacy, response, safety, side effects, and remission with azathioprine, dapsone, and narrowband UV-B (NB-UVB) along with their impact on itching severity and life quality. Methodology Open-label, prospective, comparative, interventional study on generalised lichen planus patients treated with systemic steroids along with one of three steroid-sparing modalities. Totally 90 patients were studied including 30 patients each who received azathioprine (Group A), dapsone (Group B), and narrow band UVB (NB-UVB) (Group C), respectively, for 16 weeks. Itch severity index (ISI) and Dermatology life quality Index (DLQI) were assessed at baseline and week 24. All patients received oral prednisolone until there was no more active disease. Response was assessed in terms of occurrence of new lesions, flattening of lesions, post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH), and grading of lesions two weeks once for 6 months followed by six months of follow-up after treatment completion. Results Females outnumbered males in all 3 groups. Mean patient ages (34, 38, and 34) and the presence of one or more co-morbidities (50%, 42.3%, 37.5%) in Groups A, B, and C, respectively, were comparable. ISI and DLQI improvement at 24 weeks were greatest with NB-UVB, followed by azathioprine and dapsone in that order; the differences in improvement between groups showed high statistical significance. At week 24, occurrence of new lesions (0%, 0%, 3.8%), flattening (100% - all groups), PIH (100% - all groups), grade 3 lesions i.e. poor response, resolution of 20-50% of lesions (7.1%, 11.5%, 0%), grade 2 lesions i.e. partial response, resolution of 50-90% of lesions (35.7%, 76.9%, 8.3%) and grade 1 lesions i.e. complete response, resolution of >90% lesions (57.1%, 11.5%, 91.3%) were noted in Groups A, B and C, respectively; the differences in the extent of resolution of lesions between the groups were highly significant statistically. Remission was seen in 100%, 76.9%, and 87.5% in Groups A, B, and C, respectively, after six months. Limitations The sample size was small. Only 3 treatment options were compared in this study but many more options have been used for lichen planus. Long term follow-up is required. Conclusions NB-UVB with oral steroids showed a better response in terms of improvement in DLQI, ISI, disease control, and side effects than azathioprine and dapsone. Azathioprine showed a faster response and more prolonged remission. Dapsone showed poor response with multiple side effects.

Efficacy and safety of azathioprine versus mycophenolate mofetil in chronic actinic dermatitis in skin of color: results of a randomized controlled trial.

Chronic actinic dermatitis (CAD) is an immunologically mediated photodermatosis that has been effectively treated with azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in uncontrolled studies. We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy and safety of azathioprine and MMF in CAD treatment, aiming to address existing evidence gaps. Consecutive CAD patients were randomized into two groups: azathioprine (Group A) or MMF (Group B) for 12 weeks. Primary outcomes included Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at baseline and Week 12. Secondary outcomes included various clinicodemographic factors predictive of treatment response, defined at least a 75% reduction in EASI score (EASI75) by Week 12. The median (IQR) percentage reduction in EASI at 12 weeks was higher in Group B than in Group A [78.3% (75.0-83.30%) vs. 68.3% (31.2-80.10%), P = 0.034]. Baseline DLQI scores indicated a moderate impact on quality of life, with significant reductions by Week 12 in both groups and no intergroup differences at baseline (P = 0.291) or Week 12 (P = 0.599). Overall, 23 patients were classified as non-responders, with more extended illness duration (P = 0.026) and outdoor occupations (P = 0.042) associated with poorer responses. Adverse effects were consistent with known profiles, with one patient discontinuing azathioprine due to hypersensitivity. Our study highlights the efficacy and safety of azathioprine and MMF in CAD treatment, with MMF showing superior outcomes. However, further research is warranted to explore emerging therapies and prognostic factors in CAD management.

Methotrexate versus conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in the treatment of non-anterior sarcoidosis-associated uveitis.

To compare the safety and efficacy of methotrexate (MTX), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and azathioprine (AZA) in non-anterior sarcoidosis-associated uveitis. Retrospective study including non-anterior sarcoidosis-associated uveitis according to the revised International Workshop on Ocular Sarcoidosis criteria. The primary outcome was defined as the median time to relapse or occurrence of serious adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. 58 patients with non-anterior sarcoidosis-associated uveitis (MTX (n=33), MMF (n=16) and AZA (n=9)) were included. The time to treatment failure (ie, primary outcome) after adjustment for corticosteroids dose and the presence of vasculitis was significantly higher with MTX (median time of 34.5 months with MTX (IQR: 11.8 -not reached) vs 8.4 months (3.1-22.9) with MMF and 16.8 months (8.0-90.1) with AZA (p=0.020)). The risk of relapse at 12 months was more than twice lower in MTX as compared with MMF (p=0.046). Low visual acuity at the last visit was significantly lower with MTX (4% vs 9% in MMF vs 57% in AZA group (p=0.008)). Regarding all 75 lines of treatment (MTX (n=39), MMF (n=24) and AZA (n=12)), MTX was more effective than MMF and AZA to obtain treatment response at 3 months (OR 10.85; 95% CI 1.13 to 104.6; p=0.039). Significant corticosteroid-sparing effect at 12 months (p=0.035) was only observed under MTX. Serious adverse events were observed in 6/39 (15%), 5/24 (21%) and 2/12 (17%) with MTX, MMF and AZA, respectively. In non-anterior sarcoidosis-associated uveitis, MTX seems to be more efficient compared with AZA and MMF and with an acceptable safety profile.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and azathioprine in patients with alopecia areata and variants: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune pathology manifested by loss of hair. To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and azathioprine in patients with AA and variants. In this double-blind randomized controlled trail (RCT) carried out at the Department of Dermatology, Medical Teaching Institute-Lady Reading Hospital (MTI-LRH), Peshawar, Pakistan, patients aged ≥ 12 years diagnosed with AA, alopecia totalis (AT) or alopecia universalis (AU) with minimum 50% scalp hair loss for a period ≥ 06 years were included. Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral tofacitinib 5mg twice daily (Group I) or oral azathioprine 2mg/kg body weight once daily (Group II). The primary endpoint was Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score, evaluated at baseline and 06 months follow-up. Safety was consistently assessed during the study. A total of 104 patients underwent random allocation into either the tofacitinib group (n = 52) or the azathioprine group (n = 52). The mean (SD) age of patients was 20.23 (7.14) years and 22.26 (8.07) years, while the mean (SD) disease duration was 6.59 (4.01) years and 7.98 (4.40) years in in Group I and II, respectively. Overall, 40 (38.5%) patients were adolescents while 70 (67.3%) were male. 52 (50%) had AA, 37 (35.5%) had AT and 15 (14.5%) had AU. Mean baseline SALT score in tofacitinib group was 91.02 ± 10.21 and azathioprine group was 91.02 ± 10.63, which at 06 months follow-up improved to 14.1 ± 24.6 and 63.9 ± 33.9, respectively (difference, 11.5 points; 95% confidence interval, 38.3-61.3, p < 0.0001). Overall, no major adverse effects and no difference among the minor adverse effects in the two groups (04 adverse events for tofacitinib group and 08 for azathioprine group: p = 0.23) was observed. Efficacy of tofacitinib was significantly higher than azathioprine, whilst both drugs were well-tolerated in patients with AA and variants.

Association between Autoimmune Hepatitis and Celiac Disease among Egyptian Children and Adolescents

Abstract Background Celiac disease (CD) is an immune-mediated intolerance to gluten .CD has been recognized as a multisystem disorder which may affect other extra intestinal organs, such as the skin, thyroid, heart, nervous system, pancreas and liver. Individuals with CD are at increased risk of liver disease namely cryptogenic liver disorder and autoimmune liver disorder. However, until now, it remains unknown whether these two forms of liver disease are really different entities or only different severities of the same disorder. Objective To evaluate the association of CD with autoimmune hepatitis in pediatrics. Subjects and Methods This was a cross-sectional study that was conducted at the Pediatric Hepatology Clinic and Pediatric Gastroenterology Clinic, Children’s Hospital, Ain Shams University. The study included 2 groups of patients each comprised 20 children and adolescents as follow: Group I: Patients with established diagnosis of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH). All patients were receiving corticosteroids and azathioprine Group II: Patients with established diagnosis of CD. In group I patients with AIH, CD was screened for using anti-tissue transglutaminase (tTG) IgA in addition to measuring serum IgA to determine the need to measure anti-tTG IgG. Immunological markers (ANA, anti-smooth muscle antibody (ASMA) and liver and kidney microsomal (LKM) antibodies in addition to protein electrophoresis were done for group II patients with CD to screen for AIH. Results All patients in group I with AIH had normal serum IgA levels and were found negative for anti-tTG IgA. Also, group II patients with CD were negative for ANA, ASMA and LKM antibodies with normal protein electrophoresis. Conclusion The current study showed that CD does not seem to have significant association with AIH, however, the small sample size is a study limitation. Further wider scale studies are needed to evaluate the risk of AIH in CD.

Comparison of methotrexate and azathioprine as the first-line steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents in patients with Takayasu's arteritis

BackgroundImmunosuppressive (IS) agents are recommended for the first-line treatment of patients with active Takayasu's arteritis (TAK) together with glucocorticoids (GCs). However, there is limited data comparing the efficacy and outcomes of different IS agents for this purpose. ObjectivesIn this study, we aimed to compare the outcomes of two most frequently used first-line IS agents, namely methotrexate (MTX) and azathioprine (AZA) in TAK patients. MethodsTAK patients who received any IS agent in addition to GCs as the initial therapy were included in this multicentre, retrospective cohort study. Clinical, laboratory and imaging data of the patients were assessed. In addition, a matched analysis (cc match) using variables ‘age’, ‘gender’ and ‘diffuse aortic involvement’ was performed between patients who received MTX or AZA as the first-line IS treatment. ResultsWe recruited 301 patients (F/M: 260/41, mean age: 42.2 ± 13.3 years) from 10 tertiary centres. As the first-line IS agent, 204 (67.8 %) patients received MTX, and 77 (25.6 %) received AZA. Less frequently used IS agents included cyclophosphamide in 17 (5.6 %), leflunomide in 2 (0.5 %) and mycophenolate mofetil in one patient. The remission, relapse, radiographic progression and adverse effect rates were similar between patients who received MTX and AZA as the first-line IS agent. Vascular surgery rate was significantly higher in the AZA group (23% vs. 9 %, p = 0.001), whereas the frequency of patients receiving ≤5 mg/day GCs at the end of the follow-up was significantly higher in the MTX group (76% vs 62 %, p = 0.034). Similarly, the rate of vascular surgery was higher in AZA group in matched analysis. Drug survival was similar between MTX and AZA groups (median 48 months, MTX vs AZA: 32% vs 42 %, p = 0.34). IS therapy was discontinued in 18 (12 MTX, 6 AZA) patients during the follow-up period due to remission. Among those patients, two patients had a relapse at 2 and 6 months, while 16 patients were still on remission at the end of a mean 69.4 (±50.9) months of follow-up. ConclusionsRemission, relapse, radiographic progression and drug survival rates of AZA and MTX were similar for patients with TAK receiving an IS agent as the first-line f therapy. The rate of vascular surgery was higher and the rate of GC dose reduction was lower with AZA compared to MTX at the end of the follow-up.

COVID-19 vaccine response in Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder

Objectives and aimsNeuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder (NMOSD) is a disabling autoimmune disease of the central nervous system that requires immunosuppressants to control the relapses. The latter puts them at risk for more severe COVID-19 infection. Vaccines are an effective way to control the pandemic. However, we do not know how effective they are in immunologically compromised patients. We aimed to evaluate and compare antibody levels in NMOSD patients treated with disease-modifying therapies after two doses of inactivated and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. MethodsPatients with NMOSD diagnosis and age-sex matched healthy controls who received two doses of either inactivated and mRNA COVID-19 vaccine were recruited in the study. Serum samples were collected at least two weeks after the second dose. ResultsSerum samples from 24 NMOSD patients (Mean age-36.58, Female-70.83%) and 24 healthy controls (Mean age-36.71, Female-70.83%) were evaluated. Mean antibody titer was lower in the NMOSD group (Mean; SD (2.43 ± 1.51) than in healthy controls (Mean; SD 3.23 ± 0.80). Seronegativity was only seen in the rituximab group, there were no such cases in the azathioprine group. (9 vs 0). ConclusionsThe study shows that NMOSD patients treated with rituximab may still be susceptible to severe COVID-19 infection even after both inactivated and mRNA vaccines.

Carvedilol alleviates the detrimental effects of azathioprine on hepatic tissues in experimental rats: Focusing on redox system, inflammatory and apoptosis pathways.

Drug-induced liver injury is becoming an increasingly important topic in drug research and clinical practice. Due to a lack of experimental animal models, predicting drug-induced liver injury in humans is challenging. Azathioprine (AZA) is a classical immunosuppressant with hepatotoxic adverse effects. The present study aimed to address the hepatoprotective effect of carvedilol (CAR) against AZA-induced hepatocellular injury via assessing redox-sensitive signals. To achieve this purpose, rats were allocated into four groups: control, CAR only, AZA only, and CAR plus AZA groups. The induction of hepatic injury was induced by a single intraperitoneal injection of AZA at a dose of 50mg/kg on the 6th day of the experiment. Each experimental protocol was approved and supervised by the Ethics Committee for Animal Experiments. The results of the present study revealed that CAR administration significantly diminished AZA-induced hepatic dysfunction, as evidenced by relief of hepatic function biomarkers and histopathological aberration induced by AZA injection. Besides, CAR restored oxidant/antioxidant balance as well as NRF2 expression. In addition, CAR suppressed inflammatory response induced by AZA challenge as evidenced by downregulation of TLR4, TNF-α, MPO, and eNOS/iNOS levels in hepatic tissue. Moreover, CAR recovered apoptotic/anti-apoptotic status by modulation of caspase-3/Bcl2 expression. Taken together, CAR protects against AZA-induced hepatic injury via antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anti-apoptotic activities. These findings revealed that CAR could be a good candidate for hepatic injury protection and can be added to AZA therapeutic regimen to reduce their adverse effect.

Clinical Effectiveness of Two Old Immunosuppressant Drugs, Methotrexate and Azathioprine, in the Treatment of Lichen Planopilaris: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background. Lichen planopilaris is the leading cause of cicatricial alopecia, and its management is challenging for dermatologists. It is a cell‐mediated autoimmune disorder in which activated T‐lymphocytes attack hair follicles. Aim. To compare the efficacy and safety of methotrexate versus azathioprine, two medications that affect lymphocyte function, in treating LPP. Methods. 32 LPP patients were randomly assigned to receive either 15 mg/week methotrexate or 2 mg/kg azathioprine for six months. Treatment efficacy was evaluated using the Lichen Planopilaris Activity Index (LPPAI), trichoscopy, and photography after 2, 4, and 6 months of treatment. Results. Both methotrexate and azathioprine groups showed significant improvements in LPPAI (P &lt; 0.001) and perifollicular scaling on trichoscopy (P &lt; 0.01). However, the two groups had no significant difference during the study. The azathioprine group significantly improved perifollicular erythema on trichoscopy (P = 0.002), but this was not significantly different from the methotrexate group (P = 0.69). Photographic assessment showed that more than 75% of patients in both groups improved without significant differences between the two groups. Conclusion. Methotrexate and azathioprine are two antilymphocyte medications which are both equally effective and well‐tolerated for managing LPP. This trial is registered with IRCT20191006045005N2.

Co-administration of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 and infliximab improves colitis in mice by modulating Treg differentiation.

The combination of TNF-α inhibitors and vitamin D in colitis remains to be elucidated. In the present study, we revealed the benefit of infliximab (IFX) and vitamin D in a mouse model of Ulcerative colitis (UC). A dextran sulfate sodium-induced colitis model was used. The therapeutic effect of the combination was evaluated by symptom and histopathology analysis. The synergistic mechanism was explored by detecting the regulatory effect of the combined therapy on Regulatory T cell (Treg) differentiation. IFX and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 (VitD3) synergistically prevented the development of colitis by improving clinical signs, pathological and hematological manifestation, and inhibiting intestinal inflammation (decreasing TNF-α, IL-1β, and IL-6). Co-administration of IFX (2.5 mg/kg) with VitD3 or IFX (5.0 mg/kg) with VitD3 was more effective than administration of IFX (2.5 mg/kg, 5.0 mg/kg). There was no difference in therapeutic effect between IFX (5.0 mg/kg) and VitD3+ IFX (2.5 mg/kg) groups or between the VitD3+IFX (5.0 mg/kg) and VitD3+ Azathioprine (AZA) groups. VitD3 or combination therapy showed more powerful regulation of splenetic Treg differentiation and IL-10 production than IFX alone. Moreover, VitD3 alone or in combination induced higher levels of Foxp3 and IL-10 than IFX in colon tissue. In ulcerative colitis patients, serum VitD3 levels positively correlated with Treg levels. VitD3 and IFX synergistically inhibit colitis based on their powerful regulation of Treg differentiation. VitD3 combined with IFX is an alternative therapy for patients who are intolerant to standard doses of IFX or combination of IFX and AZA.

An open-label randomised-controlled trial of azathioprine vs. mycophenolate mofetil for the induction of remission in treatment-naive autoimmune hepatitis

Patients with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) almost invariably require lifelong immunosuppressive treatment. There is genuine concern about the efficacy and tolerability of the current standard combination therapy of prednisolone and azathioprine. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) has emerged as an alternative option. The aim of this study was to compare MMF to azathioprine as induction therapy for AIH. In this 24-week, prospective, randomised, open-label, multicentre superiority trial, 70 patients with treatment-naive AIH received either MMF or azathioprine, both in combination with prednisolone. The primary endpoint was biochemical remission defined as normalisation of serum levels of alanine aminotransferase and IgG after 24 weeks of treatment. Secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability. Seventy patients (mean 57.9 years [SD 14.0]; 72.9% female) were randomly assigned to the MMF plus prednisolone (n= 39) or azathioprine plus prednisolone (n= 31) group. The primary endpoint was met in 56.4% and 29.0% of patients assigned to the MMF group and the azathioprine group, respectively (difference, 27.4 percentage points; 95% CI 4.0 to 46.7; p= 0.022). The MMF group exhibited higher complete biochemical response rates at 6 months (72.2% vs. 32.3%; p= 0.004). No serious adverse events occurred in patients who received MMF (0%) but serious adverse events were reported in four patients who received azathioprine (12.9%) (p= 0.034). Two patients in the MMF group (5.1%) and eight patients in the azathioprine group (25.8%) discontinued treatment owing to adverse events or serious adverse events (p= 0.018). In patients with treatment-naive AIH, MMF with prednisolone led to a significantly higher rate of biochemical remission at 24 weeks compared to azathioprine combined with prednisolone. Azathioprine use was associated with more (serious) adverse events leading to cessation of treatment, suggesting superior tolerability of MMF. This randomised-controlled trial directly compares azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil, both in combination with prednisolone, for the induction of biochemical remission in treatment-naive patients with autoimmune hepatitis. Achieving complete remission is desirable to prevent disease progression. Patients assigned to the mycophenolate mofetil group reached biochemical remission more often and experienced fewer adverse events. The findings in this trial may contribute to the re-evaluation of international guidelines for the standard of care in treatment-naive patients with autoimmune hepatitis. #NCT02900443.

The use of oclacitinib compared to azathioprine in the management of canine pemphigus foliaceus: A retrospective analysis.

Oclacitinib (Apoquel; Zoetis) has been reported to be beneficial for treating immune-mediated disorders. This retrospective study evaluates in which group of dogs [oclacitinib (OC) or azathioprine (AZ)] remission of pemphigus foliaceus (PF) was more effectively achieved with matched induction dosing of glucocorticoids; it further evaluates which group had a higher glucocorticoid-sparing effect. Review of 30 medical records of dogs diagnosed with PF presented to a private practice dermatological service. Retrospective analysis of dogs diagnosed with PF and treated with OC or AZ in combination with glucocorticoids. There was no significant difference in the ability to induce remission between AZ and OC groups. In the AZ group, 13 of 15 dogs went into some type of remission (partial or complete), compared with 11 of 15 in the OC group. There was no significant difference between the two groups for the glucocorticoid-sparing effect. The AZ group had an average reduction of 77.9% from the induction glucocorticoid dose, and OC group had an average reduction of 64.4%. One of 15 patients in the AZ group and three of 15 patients in the OC group had a 100% reduction of the glucocorticoid dose. These results indicate that OC can be considered as a treatment option for canine PF.

A Real-World Experience of Azathioprine Versus First-Line Disease-Modifying Therapy in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis-A Prospective Cohort Study.

Azathioprine (AZA) has demonstrated efficacy in multiple randomized control trials (RCTs) for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS). However, we still need comparative real-world data with other first-line disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). We aimed to assess AZA's effectiveness regarding relapses, disability progression, time to the first relapse, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity, and safety compared with other approved first-line DMTs in an Indian population in a real-world setting. We conducted a single-center prospective study of treatment-naive RRMS patients between 2017 and 2019. We evaluated the effects of AZA and other approved DMTs on clinical and radiological measures. Among 192 eligible patients (F:M ratio 2.84:1), 68 patients (35.4%) were on AZA, 68 patients (35.4%) were on dimethyl fumarate (DMF), 32 patients (16.7%) on interferon (IFN beta-1a), and 16 patients (8.3%) on teriflunomide (TFL). Four treatment groups were comparable: AZA v/s DMF v/s TFL v/s IFN beta-1a. In primary outcomes, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of change in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score at three months (p-value = 0.169), six months (p-value = 0.303), 12 months (p-value = 0.082), and 24 months (p-value = 0.639), the number of relapses (p-value = 0.229), and time to the first relapse (p-value > 0.05 in all groups). In the secondary outcome, there was no significant difference between the treatment groups on serial MRI parameters used according to "Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis" (MAGNIMS) 2016 criteria (p-value > 0.05). In safety outcomes, leukopenia was significantly more common in the AZA group (p-value = 0.025), flu-like symptoms (p-value = 0.0001), and injection site reactions (p-value = 0.035) were significantly more common in the IFN beta-1a group. Our study suggests AZA is as effective as other approved DMTs and a good alternative as a first-line treatment for multiple sclerosis's clinical and radiological activity in real-world settings on short follow-up. Based on these results, more randomized controlled trials of AZA v/s DMF or other DMTs are needed for more robust outcomes.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Mycophenolate Mofetil and Azathioprine in Combination with Corticosteroids in the Treatment of Lymphocytic Myocarditis.

This paper aimed to study the efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil (MM) in combination with corticosteroids in the treatment of lymphocytic myocarditis (LM) when compared to the standard combination of corticosteroids and azathioprine. The study included 50 adult patients (47.8 ± 10.8 y.o.) in a NYHA III functional class due to LM who were verified using endomyocardial biopsy. The main group included 29 patients who received MM at 2 g/day. The comparison group comprised 21 patients who received azathioprine at 150 [50; 150] mg/day. Both groups were administered with methylprednisolone. The average follow-up period was 30 [22; 35] months, but no less than 6 months. The groups were comparable in the baseline parameters and standard drug therapy. In both groups, there was a comparable significant increase in the ejection fraction (from 30.6 ± 7.7% to 44.0 ± 9.4% vs. 29.2 ± 7.7% to 46.2 ± 11.8%, p < 0.001), and a decrease in systolic pressure in the pulmonary artery and the dimensions of the left ventricle and atrium. The frequency of death was two (6.9%) and two (9.5%), transplantation was one (3.4%) and one (4.8%) patient and the "death + transplantation" endpoint was three (10.3%) and three (14.3%) without differences between the groups. The presence of the parvovirus B19 in the myocardium in 6/5 patients did not affect the results. The incidence of infectious complications was comparable. The most severe infectious complications were pneumonia and fatal purulent encephalitis (both cases in the azathioprine group), leptospirosis meningitis (in the mycophenolate mofetil group). In the patients with LM, the combination of corticosteroids with MM at a dose of 2 g/day was at least no less effective than with azathioprine. There was a tendency toward a better tolerance using MM.

Rituximab versus azathioprine for maintenance of remission for patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis and relapsing disease: an international randomised controlled trial

ObjectiveFollowing induction of remission with rituximab in anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV) relapse rates are high, especially in patients with history of relapse. Relapses are associated with increased exposure to...

Inhibition of DNA methylation attenuates lung ischemia–reperfusion injury after lung transplantation

DNA methylation plays an important role in inflammation and oxidative stress. This study aimed to investigate the effect of inhibiting DNA methylation on lung ischemia-reperfusion injury (LIRI). We adopted a completely random design for our study. Thirty-two rats were randomized into the sham, LIRI, azathioprine (AZA), and pluripotin (SC1) groups. The rats in the LIRI, AZA, and SC1 groups received left lung transplantation and intravenous injection of saline, AZA, and SC1, respectively. After 24 hours of reperfusion, histological injury, the arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen ratio, the wet/dry weight ratio, protein and cytokine concentrations in lung tissue, and DNA methylation in lung tissue were evaluated. The pulmonary endothelium that underwent hypoxemia and reoxygenation was treated with AZA or SC1. Endothelial apoptosis, chemokines, reactive oxygen species, nuclear factor-κB, and apoptotic proteins in the endothelium were studied. Inhibition of DNA methylation by AZA attenuated lung injury, inflammation, and the oxidative stress response, but SC1 aggravated LIRI injury. AZA significantly improved endothelial function, suppressed apoptosis and necrosis, reduced chemokines, and inhibited nuclear factor-κB. Inhibition of DNA methylation ameliorates LIRI and apoptosis and improves pulmonary function via the regulation of inflammation and oxidative stress.

P760 Adalimumab biosimilars versus Azathioprine: indirect comparison of efficacy, safety and persistence in treatment

Abstract Background The advent of low-cost adalimumab (ADA) biosimilars is expected to increase access to biologics. Whether ADA biosimilars influence the use of conventional immunomodulators, especially azathioprine (AZA), which should be the alternative in steroid-dependant IBD, has not been investigated and comparative data on efficacy and safety are scanty. The aim of this study is to compare ADA biosimilars and Azathioprine (AZA) in patients with IBD naive to biologics and/or immunosuppressive agents. Methods A retrospective-prospective observational study was conducted on 55 consecutive IBD-patients (30 CD, 25 UC), in follow up in our tertiary referral center, who started ADA biosimilars or AZA between 11/2018 and 11/2021. Drug choice was upon clinical judgement. Primary outcomes, clinical response and steroid-free clinical remission, were evaluated at 12 and 84 weeks, using HBI for CD and p-Mayo score for UC. Active disease was defined HBI&amp;gt;5 for CD e p-Mayo&amp;gt;2 for UC. Secondary outcomes were persistence and retention rate. Results The two treatment groups showed similar baseline characteristics regarding age, sex, familial predisposition, smoking, type of IBD and previous surgery, except the use of systemic steroids (42,85% of patients treated with ADA and 18,5% of patients with AZA; p= 0,029) and presence of active disease (60,71 % of ADA and 37,03% of AZA; p=0,082). At week 12 clinical response was obtained in 22/28 (78,6%) treated with ADA and in 22/27 (81,5%) with AZA (p=0.789), at week 84 response rate was obtained in 10/10 (100%) of ADA e 10/13 (76,9%) of AZA (p= 0,155). Clinical remission at week 12 was achieved by 19/28 (67,9%) of ADA patients and by 24/27 (88,9%) AZA (p=0,061), at week 84 by 10/10 (100%) of ADA and by 12/13 (92,3%) of AZA (p=0,380). No adverse events were registered in the ADA group, 5 AE leading to discontinuation occurred in the AZA group (0% VS 18,52% , p=0,018). The retention rate was 85,7% for ADA and 74,1% and AZA (p= 0,285). According to IBD type, treatment persistence of ADA was higher in patients with CD (Log-rank test p=0,004); in CD the persistence rate is significantly better for ADA as compared to AZA. (Log-rank test p=0,008), in UC the difference was not significant (p=0,41). Conclusion Our results suggest that ADA biosimilars are an effective therapy in steroid-dependent IBD, with a better safety profile compared to AZA, thus resulting in a higher probability of treament persistence especially in CD. The use of AZA is expected to decline in the next years.

Comparison of Oral Azathioprine and Oral Mini Pulse Steroid in the Treatment of Vitiligo: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial.

Vitiligo is a common acquired depigmentory skin disorder supposed to be of autoimmune aetiology. Different immunosuppressants have been tried with varying success. Azathioprine has been less studied in vitiligo. To study the efficacy of oral azathioprine and compare with systemic steroid in the treatment of vitiligo. It was an interventional study with multi-armed (three), parallel group, an open-label, randomized controlled trial with allocation ratio of 1:1:1. Patients of vitiligo aged between 18 and 60 years having more than 5% body surface involvement were included in the study. Patients were divided into three groups. Group A-patients received oral azathioprine 50 mg OD daily, group B-patients received combination of oral azathioprine 50 mg OD and PUVASOL and group C-patients received combination of betamethasone oral mini pulse (OMP) and PUVASOL. All the groups were treated for 1 year. Repigmentation was evaluated by vitiligo area severity index (VASI), and stabilization was evaluated by vitiligo disease activity (VIDA). Group A, group B and group C showed 24.24%, 53.24% and 47.28% improvement in VASI score, respectively, at the end of 1 year. Group B and group C showed statistically significant superior repigmentation as compared to azathioprine monotherapy. Though azathioprine and betamethasone showed equivalent efficacy, azathioprine has a better safety profile. Side effects were minimal in azathioprine groups, whereas 50% patients developed various side effects in group C. Azathioprine is safe and effective option in the treatment of vitiligo.

Long-term results of mycophenolate mofetil vs. azathioprine use in individuals with autoimmune hepatitis

We have shown previously that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) might be used as first-line treatment instead of azathioprine (AZA) in individuals with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH). Herein, we present our long-term prospective data on response and outcome after first-line therapy with MMF in treatment-naïve individuals with AIH, as similar data are missing. During the 21 years of the study, 292 individuals with AIH were included (females: 213; median age: 59 [17-85] years). Patients received either prednisolone 0.5-1mg/kg/day alone (n= 19) or in combination with AZA 1-2mg/kg/day (n= 64) or MMF (n= 183). The tapering schedule of prednisolone was identical between groups. We assessed the rates of complete biochemical response (CBR) at 6 months, 12 months, and the end of follow-up; non-response (4 weeks of treatment); CBR off prednisolone; adverse effects; CBR off treatment; histological remission; and overall and liver-related mortality between the AZA and MMF groups. The MMF group had lower non-response (p= 0.02) and higher CBR rates at 12 months (86 vs. 71.8%; p <0.05) and the end of follow-up (96 vs. 87.2%; p= 0.03) than the AZA group. Treatment change was more frequent in the AZA group (43.7 vs. 11%; p <0.001), mostly because of intolerance, whereas MMF was proven safe (serious complications 3.8 vs. 18.8%; p= 0.0003). MMF-treated patients were more frequently eligible to stop immunosuppression according to the guidelines (p <0.05). Cirrhosis at diagnosis, age at diagnosis >60 years, and longer disease duration were independent predictors of liver-related mortality. MMF seems an efficient alternative first-line treatment option for AIH, bearing lower non-response at 4 weeks and higher CBR rates at 12 months and the end of follow-up than AZA. In addition, MMF was proven to be safe, leading more frequently to the eligibility for stopping immunosuppression according to the guidelines. For more than 40 years, azathioprine (AZA) has been considered the standard treatment for induction and maintenance of response in autoimmune hepatitis (AIH). However, treatment usually needs to be maintained for life, as relapses are common after AZA cessation. Therefore, alternative treatment options are needed. Herein, we showed that the use of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) as an alternative first-line immunosuppressant was much more efficient in the long-term than AZA as attested by the lower non-response rates at 4 weeks and higher response rates at 12 months and the end of follow-up. Moreover, AZA-treated patients were more prone to change treatment because of intolerance, whereas MMF-treated patients were more often eligible to achieve treatment withdrawal.

Efficacy and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease on immunosuppressive and biological therapy: Prospective observational study.

Background and aimsSARS-CoV-2 is a worldwide serious health problem and vaccination seems to have a crucial role in managing the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this prospective observational study was to monitor the trend of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 after vaccination with BNT162b2 (COMIRNATY) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated by immunosuppressive and/or biological therapy, demonstrate whether any type of this therapy is associated with poorer production of antibodies against COVID-19 and evaluate the safety of vaccination against COVID-19 in these patients.MethodsEighty-seven eligible patients from one tertiary gastroenterological center with inflammatory bowel disease (60 with CD, 27 with UC) treated by immunosuppressive and/or biological therapy from the antiTNFα group were indicated to vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Effectiveness of vaccination was evaluated by the values of antibodies before and 4 weeks after 2nd dose of vaccine. Additional goal was to evaluate adverse events of vaccination.ResultsBefore the 2nd dose of vaccine, geometric mean of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies were 40.7 U/ml in the biological therapy group, 34.8 U/ml in the azathioprine group and 44.8 U/ml in the combination therapy group of patients. The geometric means were 676.5.7 U/ml in the biological therapy group, 614.4 U/ml in the azathioprine group and 500.1 U/ml in the combination therapy group of patients four weeks after 2nd dose. Statistically significant differences between these groups were not proved. Several non-severe local and general adverse events were present in our patients with a majority of these events on the day of vaccine administration and the day after, no anaphylactic reactions were present.ConclusionsOur measurements proved the efficacy and safety of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated by immunosuppressive and/or biological therapy. Statistically significant differences between our groups of patients were not proved.